3 ms·

> It's not like starlink is a US only service and SpaceX is going to prevent anyone in India from having access. I'm not sure this is entirely true. SpaceX is

> It's not like starlink is a US only service and SpaceX is going to prevent anyone in India from having access. I'm not sure this is entirely true. SpaceX is US corporation. They could easily decide to deny access, or otherwise limit what people can do, based on policies set by the US government. See also, the GP post, referencing the East India Company. EDIT: The point here is not whether StarLink is a net benefit or not. It's that it's a predatory capture of resources, fuelled by capital and advantages, which won't be passed down, but have a good chance of being used for further leverage. EDIT2: I'm not against advancement, far from it, but if there are no tools to manage it, then we end up with oil companies again.

oh_sigh 6y ago
They could easily deny access, but there is no compelling reason for them to unless forced to by the government. Other countries denying starlink access to their own citizens is a much more likely outcome. I don't understand how starlink is a predatory capture of resources. It's not like they are saturating LEO and no other satellites are allowed to be launched. There are multiple companies planning high speed satellite based internet, including one backed by the richest person in the world.
- throw_a_fay 6y ago
  And by virtue of being one or two of the richest people in the world, they have the right to do what they want in the atmosphere, pay no-one for it, and profit. I think Jesse Pinkman said it best, "dolla dolla bills yo" EDIT: It's not whether the technology is useful or not, it's about whether you are be ok with a handful people using natural resources in the pursuit of more wealth and influence, with no regard for the consequences. If you can't see any parallels in history, then :shrug:
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    No, not by virtue of them being some of the richest people in the world. A million people could all pitch in $5,000 and form a satellite internet company if they wanted, and it would play by the same exact rules that spacex/bezos/whoever is currently out there. Who would you suggest gets paid for putting satellites up? Who does American Airlines, or the random dude in the Cessna pay in order to fly over my house? And yes, they can profit, just like telecom and other companies that use satellites do. > with no regard for the consequences The consequences being globally available internet, at the cost of a couple hundred scientists having a harder time doing the observation. If you can't see the upside because of the downside, then :shrug:
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I think the issue some want to call attention to is not the consequences that have occurred so far, it's the process of disregarding consequences. It's like how people have been upset recently about secret police; it can't be reduced to the specific actions that we know about, it's the process being unacceptable to some.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

oh_sigh 6y ago

They could easily deny access, but there is no compelling reason for them to unless forced to by the government. Other countries denying starlink access to their own citizens is a much more likely outcome. I don't understand how starlink is a predatory capture of resources. It's not like they are saturating LEO and no other satellites are allowed to be launched. There are multiple companies planning high speed satellite based internet, including one backed by the richest person in the world.

throw_a_fay 6y ago
And by virtue of being one or two of the richest people in the world, they have the right to do what they want in the atmosphere, pay no-one for it, and profit. I think Jesse Pinkman said it best, "dolla dolla bills yo" EDIT: It's not whether the technology is useful or not, it's about whether you are be ok with a handful people using natural resources in the pursuit of more wealth and influence, with no regard for the consequences. If you can't see any parallels in history, then :shrug:
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  No, not by virtue of them being some of the richest people in the world. A million people could all pitch in $5,000 and form a satellite internet company if they wanted, and it would play by the same exact rules that spacex/bezos/whoever is currently out there. Who would you suggest gets paid for putting satellites up? Who does American Airlines, or the random dude in the Cessna pay in order to fly over my house? And yes, they can profit, just like telecom and other companies that use satellites do. > with no regard for the consequences The consequences being globally available internet, at the cost of a couple hundred scientists having a harder time doing the observation. If you can't see the upside because of the downside, then :shrug:
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I think the issue some want to call attention to is not the consequences that have occurred so far, it's the process of disregarding consequences. It's like how people have been upset recently about secret police; it can't be reduced to the specific actions that we know about, it's the process being unacceptable to some.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]